Friday, 22 September 2017

Gamble v May

We said that we would wait to see if Theresa May
would or not satisfy the request from SY to continue funding Operation
Grange for the next semester of the current fiscal year.

However there’s something about Richard Bilton’s BBC programme that we think should be brought to public attention.

As
we said in our previous post “Summer Games” we think this programme was
part of an agreement between Theresa May and the people that we have
called here from the “other side”.

We have called them that
because we think in the Maddie case they are on the other side of the
Tory government’s intent since Operation Grange was launched.

But
they were on opposing sides only in the Maddie case and we think that
happened because everyone was, shall we say, not adequately updated on
realities and consequences when it was decided to move against the
McCanns so that the Maddie nuisance thing could be put to rest once and
for all, which was what we think was Operation Grange main objective.

The
“other side” knew that the McCanns could not be hung out to dry by
themselves, that many others would have to join in the downfall as there
was no way to explain how the Tapas group were able to dispose of the
body without help.

In all other matters outside the Maddie case –
or in a great majority of them – the “other side” people were and are
government allies.

We have said in a reply to a comment in our
previous post that we think the agreement reached – and in which the BBC
programme was enabled to air – had a much wider scope than the Maddie
case. It was to have a clear and significant Tory majority in parliament
and thus eliminate politically Corbyn and Labour.

2. Jim Gamble

We
also said in our previous post that we think that once the parties
involved in these negotiations agreed, the Maddie bit was handed over to
the person the UK entrusted it with since May 4 2007 until he felt
pressured to leave CEOP: Jim Gamble.

Simply
there’s no other reason for an agency, specialising in child
exploitation and online protection – Maddie was neither exploited or
subject to any online violence – to write up a report for government
encompassing all things related to Maddie that happened until then and,
if we are to trust Gamble, to go as far as to make proposals for the way
forward on the subject.

Please note that CEOP, the agency in question, isn’t a statutory child protection agency and its title is about ONLINE child protection and it’s not a child protection agency making decisions about futures of children at risk.

With Operation Grange, as we said above, the government and the other side split on what concerned Maddie.

We
think Gamble continued to be Maddie’s operational leader for the other
side. We base this assessment on his role during the “Troll Dossier
Campaign of 2014” which led to Brenda Leyland’s death.

Other
active participants in this shameful and disgusting campaign were Martin
Brunt, the Swan Lady and Summers and Swann couple.

Another
person, who we will not mention, also participated but was not noticed.
We would like to tell that person that we did notice and that it was
him/her who helped us fully understand what happened.

Back to
Gamble, we think that it was not about the skies over Lisbon that Gamble
tweeted when he spoke of “Grey sky over Lisbon today” on October 24
2015, a tweet that seems to have been deleted.

We think that then
he was in Lisbon to negotiate and with that tweet he was sending a
message back home informing those who mattered that things weren’t going
well, that the Portuguese weren’t being, shall we say, cooperative as
they usually were and if someone back in the UK had any sort of leverage
to use against Portugal, to do it then while he was still in the city.

Certainly a message to someone as one would expect grey skies in October. It would only be worthy of comment if it was summer.

And Gamble’s participation in Bilton’s documentary comes as no surprise.

In
fact, the moment we saw him, we knew that the entire production was a
farce against truth no matter how much Bilton made himself out to be
against the McCanns and how much Colin Sutton said that Operation Grange
was a biased “nothing-burger”.

And it’s his participation in the documentary that we deem to be the most important thing that the documentary shows.

3. The transcript

Let’s transcribe the part of the documentary which we think is most telling, as of 00:31:24:RICHARD
BILTON (voice over): In June 2010, an internal Home Office report had recommended a
UK police review of the Madeleine McCann case. But it was ignored for
months. Jim Gamble wrote the report.JIM GAMBLE: I met with the
Home Secretary in the lead-up, the end of the summer of 2010, with
Theresa May, the new Home Secretary. It was made clear to me by her and
her private secretary at the time that she hadn't had time to review the
McCann Report. So at that stage I don't believe it had even been read.BILTON
(voice over): Madeleine's family were told by a national newspaper that
it would put pressure on the government. In May 2011, The Sun
serialized a book written by Kate McCann. The deal raised £500,000 for
the Find Madeleine Fund.CLARENCE MITCHELL: The Sun were able to
offer a very wide package of how they would handle it, and part of that
was putting an appeal on the front page for Mr Cameron, as he was then
Prime Minister, to do something about having the Portuguese material
properly reviewed and assessed by Scotland Yard. This would be a running
request that would have continued to appear in the paper, should a
review not take place.BILTON (voice over): Three sources close
to the government decision have told us that this front page and the
threat of more to follow - changed everything. The Sun got what the
McCanns wanted. The government changed its position. A police review was
started.GAMBLE: My opinion is that that report lay gathering
dust up to and until there was another letter published in a newspaper
on the front page and that resulted in the government responding in
public and instantly commissioning something that we'd asked for much,
much earlier.BILTON (voice over): That's not what Theresa May told the Leveson Inquiry into the press.THERESA
MAY: I
swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth.BILTON (voice over): She said the government had been considering a review before The Sun got involved.LEVESON INQUIRY: Did you feel that any pressure was put on you behind the scenes to order this review or not?MAY:
I felt that the work we were doing to look at this review had been
going on for some time, it was coming to fruition around this time
anyway, and obviously the issue was a matter of public concern.BILTON: Theresa May told Leveson that the work had gone on for some time…GAMBLE: So it's just coincidence?BILTON: What do you think?GAMBLE:
Well, I know that whenever I spoke to her in the late summer of 2010
that it wasn't on the agenda. Because I had presented the report to them
and I know that, you know, she hadn't reflected, reviewed or read it at
that time.BILTON (voice over): However it started, the
government was now persuaded. Madeleine McCann would be a special case.
And Scotland Yard was asked to help.Sir PAUL STEPHENSON (Former
Commissioner, Metropolitan Police): Clearly I was aware that within the
media there was a lot of media reports of connections or contacts
between newspaper proprietors and senior politicians. Frankly, that was
all irrelevant to me.BILTON: Why? Why was it irrelevant? Because you're getting the request, you're the end of it, if you like.STEPHENSON: Because it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to my decision. I
was always very clear of what my responsibilities were. I was the
operational lead and any decisions to get involved in this would be an
operational decision, not one for politicians.BILTON: Were you comfortable with that chain of events? Could you have said, no, we're not getting involved?STEPHENSON: Yes.BILTON: Would you have done that?STEPHENSON: If my criteria hadn't been satisfied, yes. Are there legitimate lines of enquiry that we, the Met, can bring our expertise to? Do we have the background of dealing internationally that other people don't? Yes. Is there a precedent? Yes. And is there additional funding for these additional pieces of work? Yes. Based on all those four things, well, why would I not want to help?BILTON
(voice over): The British investigation into the Madeleine McCann case,
Operation Grange, was started. The first job for the man assembling the
team was to assess the parents.SIMON FOY (Former Head of
Homicide, Metropolitan Police): Even on the first glance of what we
looked at and when we took the information back and ran it through our
own understanding and verified sightings and accounts and statements and
all the rest of it, it was perfectly clear to us that the McCanns
themselves had nothing at all to do with the actual disappearance.BILTON: Why?FOY:
Because it just... It was just... It was just obvious from, you know,
that everything stacked up that they, you know they were, they were
where they were when the child went missing.BILTON (voice over):
Commander Foy chose Andy Redwood to run the investigation. He had a
full murder squad. 35 officers and staff.

We remind readers that
Gamble who is the former head of the Child Exploitation and Online
Protection agency was presented by Bilton in the documentary as the
former head of a Child Protection Agency that doesn’t exist nor has ever
existed.

4. Gamble v May

We think that Gamble was not very happy for having been convinced to leave the CEOP.

In fact, we think he has never forgiven her and seems to hold a grudge against her.

From
the above, it’s very clear that the relationship between them was far
from amicable from the outset. May was appointed as Home Secretary on
May 12 2010.

Watching the documentary it seems that Gamble is
accusing May of having lied under oath. Of course he wouldn’t do that –
he doesn’t as we’ll show – because that would be a mistake he wouldn’t
make.

What he accuses May of is not having read his report and not of lying under oath. They are separate things.

But
this accusation gives us our very first important indication: Gamble
thinks the entire Maddie case revolves around him. Anything outside him
or his report cannot be about Maddie.

Any doubts anyone had about Gamble being the UK’s operational leader on Maddie up until the Summer are dissipated.

It’s not us speculating, it’s him telling us that.

On her Wikipedia page there’s not a single reference about Maddie, McCanns or Operation Grange.

Many
other issues are mentioned but nothing about the Maddie case. It seems
that May had many other worries, or at least that Maddie was not at the
top of her priorities in the Summer 2010.

“Speaking at the
Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) conference on 29 June 2010,
May announced radical cuts to the Home Office budget, likely to lead to a
reduction in police numbers. In July 2010, it was reported that May
had corresponded with Kate and Gerry McCann, the parents of the missing
child Madeleine McCann. In August 2010, May attended a private
meeting with Mr and Mrs McCann to discuss their case.”

“The parents of missing Madeleine McCann are to meet the home secretary to discuss the search for their daughter.The meeting has been arranged after an exchange of letters between Kate and Gerry McCann and Theresa May.”

“The parents of missing girl Madeleine McCann have met Home Secretary Theresa May to discuss the search.Madeleine, from Rothley, Leicestershire, disappeared from a holiday flat in Praia da Luz on the Algarve in May 2007, aged three.Before the meeting on Wednesday, Kate and Gerry McCann had called for an independent review of the case”

So
May is being absolutely truthful – and we wouldn’t expect anything else
– when she tells the Leveson Inquiry that “I felt that the work we
were doing to look at this review had been going on for some time, it
was coming to fruition around this time anyway”.

So, Theresa May is not lying. But is Gamble accusing her falsely?

We will get back to that because that is exactly what is so important about the transcribed excerpt of the documentary.

5. Simon Foy

We would like to deal with 3 people before we get to the crux of post, Simon Foy, Colin Sutton and Sir Paul Stephenson.

About Foy it was one of the most embarrassing appearances of the entire documentary.

His
job in the documentary seems to be one of confirming what Bilton had
already stated when ‘dismantling’ the Portuguese investigation that
Gerry couldn’t possibly be the man at the Smith sighting because he was
said to be at Tapas by “dozens of people”, which we have shown to be
untrue because if anything, the statements in the PJ Files show that Gerry McCann
was absent from Tapas for a significant period of time.

What should be a confirmation of Bilton’s statement, backfires because of Foy’s extremely poor performance:“SIMON
FOY: Even on the first glance of what we looked at and when we took the
information back and ran it through our own understanding and verified
sightings and accounts and statements and all the rest of it, it was
perfectly clear to us that the McCanns themselves had nothing at all to
do with the actual disappearance.BILTON: Why?FOY:
Because it just... It was just... It was just obvious from, you know,
that everything stacked up that they, you know they were, they were
where they were when the child went missing.”

Remember,
on May 3 2017 he appears by saying “Colin Sutton said he was warned by
senior friend in the Met about case in 2010”, “Friend said he would be
told 'who to talk to and what to investigate', he claimed” and “'Narrow
focus' would be to prove Kate, Gerry and Tapas Nine innocent, he said”.

On
May 9 2017 the friend no longer says that the ‘narrow focus’ would be
to prove Kate, Gerry and Tapas Nine innocent. He just said “an
investigation where you were told what you could look at and what you
could not”.

And on May 15 2017 Sutton then only assumes, and is
no longer certain, that the “You wouldn't be happy leading an
investigation where you were told what you could look at and what you
could not” was about proving the McCanns being innocent, so he could be
wrong, after all assumptions are just assumptions.

Quite the change of mind for someone who decided to pick up publicly Maddie’s banner on MSM.

A
man who in the middle of this says “At the outset I should say that I
don't know what happened to Madeleine McCann. All the evidence available
to me – and there is more and deeper information available to the
public on this than any case I have looked at – does not convince me of
any theory or scenario being proved.”

But what we would like to
point out is what we published as a Post Scriptum to that post which was
the article from the News of the World from May 9 2010 ““UK Tabloid
News: Murder chief for Maddie”:

“Top cop spearheads new probe into the disappearance of Madeleine McCannBy Lucy Panton, NoW Crime EditorBRITAIN'S top murder cop has been lined up to spearhead a new probe into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, we can reveal.Det
Chief Insp Colin Sutton, 49, who has been involved in some of the UK's
biggest inquiries - including the murder of Milly Dowler and the terror
reign of the Nightstalker sex beast - is seen as the best man to handle
the challenging review.Senior child protection officer Jim Gamble has asked Scotland Yard to take a fresh look at the three-year investigation.He
blasted Portuguese cops for their handling of the hunt for Maddie - who
vanished aged three from her family's Algarve holiday apartment in
2007. Now the Met Police are set to review all leads in the case, using
technology and standards expected in a UK homicide or kidnap.It
will delight Maddie's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann. A senior police
source said: "They deserve reassurance that everything that can be done
has been done."

So, BEFORE Theresa May became Home Secretary, Jim
Gamble already knew that Operation Grange was going to take place and
he knew that Colin Sutton would head it.

Can anyone explain this other than there being a close relationship between Gamble and Sutton?

We
certainly believe that the Operation Grange proposed by Gamble would
be, as Sutton first said – in 2017 mind you, to serve the purpose of
showing how Operation Grange was void – that the “'Narrow focus' would
be to prove Kate, Gerry and Tapas Seven innocent”.

That was the
Operation Grange that Gamble wanted, one led by Colin Sutton but it
wasn’t the Operation Grange he got because if it had been he wouldn’t be
showing so much anger about his report not having, allegedly, being
read by May and he wouldn’t have been convinced to have left his job on
October 2010.

Hopefully, any doubts about Sutton’s 2017 participation in the Maddie case have now been dissipated.

Oh,
and doesn’t Bilton say that Operation Grange only happened or was
decided when The Sun published that front page on May 12 2011?

Gamble
seems to confirm it: “My opinion is that that report lay gathering dust
up to and until there was another letter published in a newspaper on the
front page and that resulted in the government responding in public and
instantly commissioning something that we'd asked for much, much
earlier.”

7. Sir Paul Stephenson

About his appearance there are 2 significant things we would like to highlight.

The first is him showing his independence as a Commissioner from the politicians:

“Sir
PAUL STEPHENSON: Clearly I was aware that within the media there was a
lot of media reports of connections or contacts between newspaper
proprietors and senior politicians. Frankly, that was all irrelevant to
me.BILTON: Why? Why was it irrelevant? Because you're getting the request, you're the end of it, if you like.STEPHENSON: Because it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to my decision. I
was always very clear of what my responsibilities were. I was the
operational lead and any decisions to get involved in this would be an
operational decision, not one for politicians.BILTON: Were you comfortable with that chain of events? Could you have said, no, we're not getting involved?STEPHENSON: Yes.BILTON: Would you have done that?STEPHENSON: If my criteria hadn't been satisfied, yes. Are there legitimate lines of enquiry that we, the Met, can bring our expertise to? Do we have the background of dealing internationally that other people don't? Yes. Is there a precedent? Yes. And is there additional funding for these additional pieces of work? Yes. Based on all those four things, well, why would I not want to help?”

First,
he seems to be saying the decision to launch Operation Grange was his.

That the UK Prime Minister had simply requested the review and it was
him who decided.

So, according to him, the McCanns requested
David Cameron for a review, and Cameron a simple and humble
Prime-Minister requested the all-powerful Met Commissioner, who, it
seems, decided to satisfy such a request.

We will leave it up to readers to decide on whether it was on receiving an order from the UK Prime Minister.

By
the way, was it the McCanns who requested the review or was it Gamble?
We are getting mixed messages about this, so we would advise the other
side to tune-up this bit of their story.

The second aspect we want to highlight from Stephenson’s words is this:

“Clearly
I was aware that within the media there was a lot of media reports of
connections or contacts between newspaper proprietors and senior
politicians. Frankly, that was all irrelevant to me.”

We don’t
recall any “media reports of connections or contacts between newspaper
proprietors and senior politicians”. In the first 4 months of 2011, the
media was totally focused on Kate McCann’s book.

By the way,
Bilton says this “Madeleine's family were told by a national newspaper
that it would put pressure on the government. In May 2011, The Sun
serialized a book written by Kate McCann. The deal raised £500,000 for
the Find Madeleine Fund.” We would like anyone to provide a link to any
of the serialisation of the book. It didn’t happen.

It was
promised that there would be one after the book was published but it
never happened.

When the other side realised that Operation Grange was
to get the McCanns and not to exonerate them, they were so stunned that
the issue was dropped like it a red hot potato.

There was no word on the MSM about any conversation between newspaper proprietors and politicians about a review.

Later,
at the Leveson Inquiry, it came to light a possible forcing of hand by
Rebekah Brooks to David Cameron but that was long after Operation Grange
was opened.

Operation Grange came as a surprise to the public in May 2011.

So if it wasn’t public, how did the Commissioner get to be “clearly aware”?

Is
SY, even its highest ranks, privy to what is talked between the government
and the newspaper owners? Only SY, government and newspaper owners can
answer that, and we would really like to hear it.

8. The reminder

Let’s
then get to why this transcribed excerpt is really important – not that
anything else we have said on this post wasn’t – and it’s what Gamble
says when he says this:

- “I met with the Home Secretary in the
lead-up, the end of the summer of 2010, with Theresa May, the new Home
Secretary. It was made clear to me by her and her private secretary at
the time that she hadn't had time to review the McCann Report. So at
that stage I don't believe it had even been read” and,

- “Well, I
know that whenever I spoke to her in the late summer of 2010 that it
wasn't on the agenda. Because I had presented the report to them and I
know that, you know, she hadn't reflected, reviewed or read it at that
time.”

Did the reader pick up what the important words above are?

Let
us highlight them for you: “It was made clear to me by her and her
private secretary at the time” and “whenever I spoke to her in the late
summer of 2010”.

Haven’t yet picked up their importance?

Let us help further by asking a simple question: who talks to the Home Secretary?

Or
to put it bluntly, could the reader, even wanting to, just stroll down
to the Home Office and speak to the Home Secretary? No.

See where this is leading?

Gamble explicitly says he can talk directly and on multiple occasions with Home Secretary.

Who
can do that? We would say that outside the Home Secretary requesting a
conversation, only the Prime-Minister and her private secretary.

Everyone else must make an appointment and that appointment must be accepted.

As we have seen, by Gamble’s own words, their relationship was not on the best of terms.

Gamble
was JUST the head of a MINOR agency called CEOP. Who happened to have
written a report for the government and we agree that, naturally he
would have been anxious to hear a result on it.

Gamble could have
asked as many appointments he wanted and would be told that the Home
Secretary would be busy, or an appointment made up and he only be
received by the private secretary or even someone lower down the chain
who would tell him there was nothing new about his report.

We ask the reader to be an employee of a major corporation, a head of a sub-division or even a division, who was asked to write a report for its CEO.

Time would pass and the reader would start to get worried about the lack of response from upstairs.

Would
the reader dare ask the CEO why he hadn’t responded to the report? We
don’t think so. We, in those circumstances would patiently wait.

But
if the reader did dare, would the reader pick up the phone, or walk
into the CEO’s office and ask him or her about it? Only if looking for
the quickest way of getting fired.

Would the reader wait in a
corridor to see if the CEO passed and then when he did pop the question?
Again only if on a getting fired mission.

And would the reader
do any of the above in an aggressive manner in which Gamble seems to
have demanded an answer for his report from the Home Secretary?

We will leave it for the reader to answer that.

We
would say such an attitude and ‘familiarity’ with the Home Secretary
can only come from someone who feels he has more power than that of the
Home Secretary.

Being Head of CEOP doesn’t grant such a status.
However, being the operational leader of the Maddie case working, or who
used to work for someone above the Home Secretary does.

We will let the reader do the Math.

Gamble is just reminding May of the result of that equation.

And now the reader can easily understand why Gamble thought that all about Maddie revolved solely around him. Because up until then, it did.

9. Conclusion

Gamble in our opinion is angry with Theresa May and he shows it in the documentary.

Theresa
May is not lying nor, we think, is Gamble. May may have read the report
or not and if she did, she didn’t give it any importance so it’s
basically the same as not having read it.

In our opinion, Gamble proposed the exemption of the McCanns, May was set on burying the McCanns with the issue.

But
what Gamble is really doing in the documentary is reminding May on what
level the consequences will happen if she ever considered changing her
mind about archiving.

It seems, as we explained on our previous post, that she has.

That’s why we said then that the game is now resumed to a single name: Theresa May.

If by "normal service has been resumed" is in terms of Maddie case archival, we would disagree.

We have come to the conclusion that the archival pressure is being led by the Daily Mail, people who we would (and have) called the Brexit elite - we repeat that we are not naking any sort of judgement on Brexit itself, just making a characterisation of some people who we find are very interested the case be archived.

That said, May's speech, without judging its political worth, was very much against the Brexit hardliners.

If by that you meant something else, then you are making a political statement and our blog is not a place for it.

Yes,but another couple of thing's that leads me to think it'll be archived is the McCanns going to the ECHR,they must know even with archival that will not absolve them,the only way they can protest that they have had no part in the disappearance is that court,plus the time its taking to decide on the funding,its obviously not cut and dried.We'll see in the fullness of time.

I rather would say "Solving this case might be a bottomless pit for the UK". Such a simple case though (imo) !Fernando Pessoa wrote "É preciso ser realista para descobrir a verdade. É preciso ser romântico para criá-la" (You have to be realistic to discover the truth. You have to be romantic to create it).

We have received a comment from Anonymous at 23 Sep 2017, 22:09:00, which we decided not to publish in its entirety. Not because it’s rude, it certainly isn’t, nor because vulgar language was used , it certainly wasn’t, but because it is making a political statement which, as we have said, do not think our blog is the place for.

We hope Anonymous at 23 Sep 2017, 22:09:00 and the rest of our readers understand.

So we only publish 2 excerpts Anonymous at 23 Sep 2017, 22:09:00 which we think are pertinent to the Maddie case:

“Jim Gamble is a nobody who has ended up selling security apps and in the few interviews he takes part in his bitterness at being sacked is evidenct.”

And,

“…but im still confident of some form of truth because this isn't going to go away without it. I will quote her [Theresa May’s] words when rejecting membership of the about the EEA " I fear it would inevitably lead to friction and then a damaging re-opening of the nature of our relationship in the near future: the very last thing that anyone on either side of the Channel wants." Same applies to the Maddie case Theresa”

We don't think that someone who is commissioned by the UK government to write up an overarching report on the nation's most politically sensitive criminal case of its history and is able to talk to the Home Secretary "whenever", can be considered to be a nobody.

We agree with you that some form of the truth will appear. But let's not be naive and expect that the big fish will be caught on this net.

Textusa perhaps in hindsight a "nobody" is perhaps the incorrect choice of word. I agree with you that he at one time held a important political role and as head of CEOP that give an importance in policing in the UK. What I'm trying to portray is that' his public role now represents a nothing or a nobody though his inclusion on the panarama programme probably shows he still is useful at times for the other side.

I don't disagree that the big fish won't be caught and tbh how difficult will it be to approve a EAW or charge them (whatever course of action is appropriate ). Look at the carry on with arresting journalist, how many ended up being convicted of anything, how many of the people charged with hillsboroigh will see the inside of a prison cell. High paid lawyers will keep most wealthy or well financed people from being extradited or convicted. The McCanns and the Tapas crew will go down because their financiers will abandon them in favour of protecting the big fish when the time comes. However when the people have stopped chewing off the flesh of their exposure they will begin looking further up the food chain. My point is that Mrs May must know that and she must ask herself does the UK want to be here in another 10 years. What about if there is a change of government will JC have the same loyalty or fear of these people.

I'm ranting a bit here but rather than rewrite I will say that SY have the evidence about the McCanns, the Tapas crew and all others. They have to consider the implications for the government of charging "the others" and the chances of a conviction or approval of an EAW. They need to weigh this up against the fact that this case will never died until the full truth is known. Not an easy task.

Gamble is and was an opportunist, like many others jumping on a passing bandwagon to further his own cause & department, which should have had nothing to do with this case. Although somehow he managed to secure from the Labour government (prior to May | Tory) £100 - £200k as a scoping exercise. Irrespective if May had or had not read it, one would assume the advisers read such things, and report .... May was NOT the first Home Secretary, and prior to the Sun's tactics aka Brooks & Cameron, Home Secretaries in both Governments had previously REFUSED. So, someone must have read it. Well, one can assume S&S got a copy, although it was always thought the McCanns didn't. !

We would agree that he is an opportunist but would think the bandwagon jumping happened before the Maddie case.

We would like to see some sort of independent official results that CEOP had while under Gamble's CEOP.

For example, we would like to know some details about these 278 children referred by CEOP in 2010:

"Today CEOP can announce that between April 2009 and March 2010 we were directly involved in instigating and supporting investigations that safeguarded 278 children - double the number from the previous year"

"Huge holes and coming close to reaching British Standards" I wonder if digging up the Portuguese's countryside attained these critical heights Jim wanted the uk to aspire to?Getting back to the here and now its an exit strategy that is lacking after narrowly focussing the investigation, they can hardly come up with a professional opinion unless there is something to back it up.

I've always felt, since she was Home Secretary, that T.May was someone with integrity and I was pleased when she became PM. I read in some article yesterday (relating to Ted Heath)that there were powerful forces within the Establishment that seemed to always veer towards 'cover-ups'. I hoped that T May would help to set a trend away from this sort of thing - towards open and honest, transparent governing. I am still hopeful that this is the case..we shall see

In reply to 11.46,Theresa May,Honesty,not in the same sentence when it's Political?Operation Conifer(Edward Heath),decision to publish findings of chief constable Mr Veale now 5 October 2017 after the Conservative Party annual bunkum?Certain persons have now claimed that the chief Constable Mr Veale is suffering with a"Mental Condition"due to Mr Veale refusing interference by a Retired Judge Richard Henriques,who was entangled in Operation Midland along with Sir Bernard Hogan Howe,Sir Leon Britain,Lord Bramell,Harvey Proctor,"Nick"child abuse claims? Mrs May is hanging on by her finger nails as Leader of the Conservative Party,so if certain sections of the"Party"need to be protected,it remains to be seen if they will still be protected?

In the same article we have this"A family pal said: “Realistically a European Court appeal was never going to succeed plus it would be too expensive to launch."It seems Mr Amaral, regrettably, has won once and for all. The fight is finally over."

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.

Total Pageviews

As of Jan 19 2019 we're waiting for Jules to own the blog.

MESSAGE to NEWCOMERS

This blog believes that concerning the MADDIE McCANN case the following happened:

- Maddie McCanndied in the early evening of May 3rd, 2007, in the Apartment 5A. We believe the death to have been accidental.

- At the time of Maddie's death the Praia da Luz's Ocean Club was hosting a large swinging holiday (which we believe took place in various locations in and around Praia da Luz - from Lagos to Sagres) in which the McCanns and friends were part of among many others.

- After Maddie's death a cover-up of unseen proportions and scope took place not to hide Maddie's death but with the main purpose of hiding the presence of swinging. To achieve that, Maddie's death had to be hidden.

- We don't believe there was any sort of negligence involved in the Maddie affair. We don't believe that T9 dined at Tapas Bar from Sunday to Wednesday. We think that on those nights they left their children with professional nannies - as did other guests - to go dine downtown PdL. On Thursday night they did use Tapas but that was simply part of what was to be "negligence"that was required to allow Maddie to be "abducted."

PJ Files

Anonymity

A MAJOR MINORITY

TRUTH is Self-Sustained

Think for yourself

Luz - THE VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED

PdL - What a place. Why does anyone holiday there?It's populated by black heroin addicts, people who rob apartments, gypsies who steal scrap and wood, scruffy moustachioed lurers of children, bogus charity collectors, suspicious street musicians, men lurking near phone booths, glasses man lurking in stairwells, blond men suspiciously lurking outside apartments, soothing couples entering apartments without permission, mysterious gangs of cleaners, men taking photographs of children on beaches... And to top it all, you have to queue for a table booking.Anonymous 11Nov 2013 12:22:00

Maybe because you can always enjoy an ice-cream in the rain?And a dip in an icy pool on arrival always attracts a crowd.Textusa 11Nov 2013 12:28:00

I like the Tapas fragile chairs and tables. They wobble nicely when cutting thick grilled steaks spilling the drinks all about! It's fun for the whole family!Anonymous 11Nov 2013 13:08:00

And how about the number of men seen carrying little blond girls in the street in the middle of the night?Anonymous 11Nov 2013 14:04:00

PdL - where families take it in turn to vomit each night, dog packs pursue and bite joggers, guests fall off catamarans, damage tendons playing tennis, have shaving accidents and stagger around apartments bleeding, domestic appliances need repair, shutters jam, baby monitors won't function at restaurants, travel cots can't be assembled.. sounds like THE VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED.Anonymous 12 Nov 2013 12:37:00

Child Catcher

Algarve - THE REGION OF THE DAMNED

“Algarve – Where Chitty Chitty Bang Bang’s Child Catcher found it ideal to roam the streets with his GYPSY-wagon:“There are children here somewhere. I can smell them. Come along, kiddie-winkies!”Algarve, the REGION OF THE DAMNED.”

Please Reconstruct I:

PJ's Declaration for Reopening Process:

"Madeleine McCann

As is the case with any situation in which a child goes missing, notwithstanding formal dismissal of the inquiry into her disappearance, and just as has always been publicly stated, the Polícia Judiciária never stopped paying close attention to any and all information that might possibly shed light on the whereabouts of the minor Madeleine McCann, the circumstances surrounding her disappearance and the identity of the perpetrator(s).

It was with this goal in mind that in March 2011 the National Director of the Polícia Judiciária entrusted a team of investigators from the North Directorate with the mission of reassessing, as a whole, the vast amount of information gathered during the inquiry, aimed at identifying data for which a more in-depth investigation might be useful and possible.

The reassessment which took place over the last two years and a half suggested new evidence to have surfaced, which, requiring the investigation to proceed, meets the requirements set out by section 279(1) of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure for reopening of the inquiry.

Accordingly, a request for reopening was made to the Public Prosecutor for the jurisdiction of Portimao, and approval granted by the latter. "

The Anne Guedes Transcriptions

Permanent Suggested Reading

Quote

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Mark Twain

Revelations

"For the righteous, a revelation is a joyous event, the realization of a divine truth but for the wicked, revelations can be far more terrifying, when dark secrets are exposed and sinners are punished for their trespasses." Quote from the TV Series "Revenge" (T2 - Ep9)

Truth

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.Arthur Schopenhauer

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.Winston Churchill

The Revolution

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.George Orwell

The Revolution Goes Viral

"Once information networks become social, the implications are massive: truth can now travel faster than lies, and all propaganda becomes instantly flammable. Sure, you can try to insert spin, but the instantly networked consciousness of millions of people will set it right: they act like white blood cells against infection so that ultimately the truth, or something close to it, persists much longer than disinformation"The Guardian (04Jan12)

We must build dikes of courage to hold back the flood of fear. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts Winston Churchill

PRECIOUS, SO TRUE, WORDS

“One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.”

Kate McCann

(in MADELEINE, by Kate McCann, published in 2011 by Bantam Press, pg. 328)

Imagine...

"This says it all, Ms Loach hit the nail on the head!

"Ms Loach replied: “Imagine the public believing that you covered up your child’s death and then sought to make money out of it. They feel shame, humiliation and anguish."

Yes, that's exactly what we, the public, believe, because that's exactly what they did! And, their "shame, humiliation and anguish" are because they know we know!"

Comment posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Sep 16, 2013, 8:36:00 AM on "McCann vs Amaral Libel Trial" post referring to Mockumentary maker Emma Loach's testimony on the 1st day of said trial as one of McCann's defense witness.

Legal Disclaimer

This blog expresses exclusively the exchange of ideas and of opinions, between WHITE HATS, so is not responsible for the use, misuse or any form of interpretation (mainly misinterpretation) of its content, as although it uses a public medium, as is the internet, it's of PRIVATE nature, very much like any other conversation that takes place in a restaurant, pub or any other public location, where FREEDOM OF SPEECH is exercised.

Sound Explanation for Viciousness

Compliments from the Maggots' Lair:

- “…all the others pale into insignificance when compared to textusa.”

- “I think she should be on the streets and off the internet"

Chinagirl):

- “Disgusting piece of slime.”

(Raptor):

- “Yikes ! That's disgusting.”

(preciousramotswe):

- “You are right. It's a shambolic mess of vitriol and obtuseness. But then they always are. The one that some claimed finally 'proved' who was carrying who during the Smith sighting is a masterpiece of deliberately confused arguments in which labrynthine plots are used to cover how empty the central thesis is”

Out of the Blue (or... Black?)

Hey textusa How are you? well I hope,just thought I would tell you that there are videos about you on youtube, claiming you are an internet predator who stole her daughters identity and prowls the forums for young boys, they say you are welsh!! I think its a case of mistaken identity because are you not portuguese and male? Anyway great blog. keep it up.(Anon., Nov 13th, 05:43)

Conversation from the "Lightless Zone"

sabot:

“Wot Round Table?”

bonnybraes1:

“He/she/it invented a barking mad 'theory' about no-one actually having eaten in the Tapas, because he/she/it couldn't grasp the table arrangements.”

So, because textusa doesn't understand stuff like that, all the Tapas group, the staff, everyone, were lying.

OMG - you don't suppose textusa is actually Gonc, do you?”

sansouci:“Could be Bonny.

The 'theories' about the table and the watersports are really so far beyond bizarre, that I get the feeling that 'textusa' could actually be 'pisstaka'.”

BLACK BUT TRUE WORDS

“Because no-one is more vicious in their search for payback that those who realise they have allowed themselves to be taken for a fool” (A "boomerang" comment left by an Anonymous (Insane?) at Sep 22, 2012 2:06:00 PM)

Insane's IMPORTANT Comments

“…How would any of you idiots like it if your name came into the public domain because you were witness to a crime, and some mad bitch set up a site in which she called you a liar, and claimed you were actually involved in the crime you witnessed? Just ponder on that for a moment”

Aug 28, 2011 9:27:00 AM

“…Where is your sense of shame or decency in accusing innocent witnesses of being involved in covering up the death of a child?

I see no shame or decency on here - just an utter indifference to the rights or feelings of others.

I notice no-one had the balls to answer my question about how you would feel if this was done to you - if you were a witness to a crime and some deranged cow on the internet accused you of being involved. You are all a complete disgrace.”

Aug 28, 2011 1:09:00 PM

FOOT IN THE MOUTH DISEASE

Insane (Nov 14, 2012 11:37:00 PM):

Oh look here - amazing what one can find out by means of a couple of emails to Mark Warner.

You are toast, lady. Finished.

I am going to enjoy this more than is actually decent.

Textusa (Nov 15, 2012 8:50:00 AM):

Well it seems that you're quite privy with the Ocean Club aren't you?

Them giving YOU the information about their own mails?

And you threatening us based on information that YOU apparently got from the Ocean Club.

That's really interesting, isn't it?

Insane (Nov 15, 2012 10:47:00 PM):

One thing I really like about Mark Warner is how helpful their staff are. Really go the extra mile for someone needing information. IYKWIM

:)

Textusa (Nov 16, 2012 11:17:00 AM):

Thank you for confirming that Mark Warner Staff are supplying YOU with information pertaining the Maddie Affair.

Insane's Moment of Rare Beauty

“It would be more suspicious if every account tallied. Police expect to find contradictions, don't tell me you did not know this?” (Nov 22, 2012 3:38:00 PM), when providing an opinion on contradictions from various statements in the PJ Files.

“I don't give a rat's arse about the statements which tally too closely - of course some of them tally too closely, there is an in depth analysis of them on my blog, the one you are not invited to.” (Nov 22, 2012 4:08:00 PM), when, exactly 30 minutes later, provides an opposite opinion, in this case about the fact that some of Tapas' Staff's statements tally too closely.

Insane the Entrepeneur?

"I'd love to stay, but I have a report to write, and it won't do itself, will it?" (Nov 29, 2012 8:14:00 PM)Insane the Disruptor, a new profession shown inNew Career Opportunities

Insane's Proposal for a New Legal Disclaimer

Textusa's new disclaimer. Please ignore all previous versions

''This blog expresses exclusively the exchange of ideas and opinions between people who have sniffed WAY too many solvents, and the imaginary people who live at the bottom of their garden, and so is not responsible for the enormous fines, possible imprisonment, or lifelong incarceration in a mental hospital which may result from it's content, as although it is on the interclickyweb, it is of a private nature, accompanied only by the voices in their heads, very much like any other conversation which takes place in a psychiatric ward between people rocking backwards and forwards in their seat and eating the wallcoverings, where FREEDOM OF SPEECH is exercised in the half hour per day of free association which the inmates are allowed.''Comment NOT published but submitted on Aug 22, 2011 10:17:00 PM

Kate's Round Table

INSANE'S BLOG

We waited so long for the link...

A possible explanation for the wait: "As I have made perfectly clear, you and your sort will never have access to my blog. We are particular about who we invite, and would not include screaming harpies and riff-faff like yourself."unpublished comment from Insane at Nov 23, 2012 10:55:00 AM

Then, a glimmer of hope?“Publishing elsewhere the posts Textusa refuses to publish is also appropriate - and also gives you fools a chance to read what she withholds from you, knowing that you would desert her if you were aware of how much trouble she leads you into.” (Nov 29, 2012 12:40:00 PM)

No, it wasn’t to be so… :“For the last time, you will never be provided with a link for my blog - you are not welcome there and will never be given access”(Nov 29, 2012 1:38:00 PM)